Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BroMikey
    replied
    Gentlemen thanks for your hard work running numbers. I can't do
    that most days unless I refresh then I forget it all.

    You both are good at the figuring, it is a gift or a curse sometimes.

    Let's put it like this. Does anyone know the input power in the video?

    For the sake of the laymen, (Like me) what kind of power could he get
    off that big flywheel? Does it seem like he can do more work with his
    flywheel than he is putting in?

    I don't remember if he shows the input. The man is no dummy and is
    doing bench work that will pay off and feels like he has something
    special. I wonder if he knows the difference with normal closed loops
    systems VS what he thinks he has found?

    We must work from the premise that he has some education and knows
    how conventional systems work. To assume someone is a lunatic based
    on a differing calculation without hands on is showing a closed door.

    The "I'm always right" attitude is on display leaving no opening for
    learning outside the box. Mathematicians and inventors are two
    separate animals. Generally the inventors just go ahead and make it
    work unable to frame the equations after the fact.
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-20-2019, 02:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Again

    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    ... Just a flywheel is a drive comparable to an electric capacitor. ...
    Yes, flywheel and capacitor are energy storage devices. A capacitor plays no part in a circuit where voltage does not change. Likewise, a flywheel plays no part on a rotational mechanical system where the angular velocity does not change.

    The video idiot uses bad math of flywheel angular momentum to attempt to calculate torque of a constant speed rotating member. Angular momentum and stored energy of the rotor is irrelevant at unchanging RPM where he attempts to calculate mechanical power and motor efficiency.

    bi, again

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    bistander, The “cunning mathematician” amused a little, but touched on interesting points. I don't want to judge him, especially calling him an "idiot." Just a flywheel is a drive comparable to an electric capacitor. Torque can be compared with the current strength. Closing the circuit, these components begin to work. I explain to people that in a kinetic chain with a constant load it is useless. Between the battery and the lamp, turn on the electric capacitor in parallel and wait for a miracle. Similar and flywheel between engine and generator with constant mechanical strength. The flywheel works in a system where a kinetic impulse is created, which can be compared with pulsed electrical circuits.
    Best wishes, be good!

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    No

    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    The fact that I counted, in the video, our "cunning mathematician" did not impress me. I disagree with his calculations. The fact that it takes into account the radius of the flywheel in the calculation is true. Judging because it introduces the force for acceleration of the flywheel, not through the axis, but closer to the circumference line, it is also true (similarly impose the force of the jolt and your American engineers). You argued that the calculation is not true, and there is not any additives. The calculation is really slippery, but the flywheel at certain speeds has a quadratic increase in the energy index. For this, I gave an example conducted under the guidance of Professor Guli (inventor of the super flywheel). My answer satisfied you.
    Thanks for your explanation, but the kinetic energy or angular momentum of the rotor (flywheel) does not enter into the power and efficiency calculations of the motor in the video demonstration because it is spinning at a constant speed at the point where the experimenter makes the measurements and calculations.

    As you can plainly see in the Russian paper you posted, they are interested in and measure the acceleration (and deceleration) of the flywheel. A change in speed (RPM) is needed to use or store energy in the flywheel. That energy is simply irrelevant in a constant speed power or efficiency calculation. That is why I call the bad math guy in the subject video an idiot.

    Sorry if you disagree but no sense of me posting more. I have explained my stated opinion.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    The fact that I counted, in the video, our "cunning mathematician" did not impress me. I disagree with his calculations. The fact that it takes into account the radius of the flywheel in the calculation is true. Judging because it introduces the force for acceleration of the flywheel, not through the axis, but closer to the circumference line, it is also true (similarly impose the force of the jolt and your American engineers). You argued that the calculation is not true, and there is not any additives. The calculation is really slippery, but the flywheel at certain speeds has a quadratic increase in the energy index. For this, I gave an example conducted under the guidance of Professor Guli (inventor of the super flywheel). My answer satisfied you.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Relevance?

    Hi Rakarskiy,

    Please comment on my previous post and how you feel it relates to the subject video which started our exchange. Namely:

    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M6EInBlv8A[/VIDEO]

    Then explain the relevance of your last post, on the Russian flywheel experiment, to the subject video.

    Thanks,

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    In the summer of 2012, the Russian Superconductor Corporation completed the preparation of experimental documentation and the manufacture of an experimental sample of a high-power and energy-intensive kinetic energy storage (NKE). Upon completion of the fabrication and acceptance tests, full-fledged bench tests of the drive were performed with testing the performance of all its nodes, as well as some basic operating modes. This article describes the achieved results of the tests performed for the cyclic operation of a high-power and energy-intensive kinetic energy storage device created.

    Taking into account the conversion losses from electrical to mechanical, and back from mechanical to electrical, the efficiency indicator should be within 0.67 (67%)
    If everything is measured in kW, for clarity, we take the value of 1 kW of electrical energy. We accelerate the flywheel and accumulate 0.8 kW of mechanical energy. Next, generate electricity by absorbing mechanical energy, we get 0.67 kW of electrical energy. according to the rules of classical physics. In experience, a different indicator of 0.97 for the production of 0.97 kW of electrical energy, we need to spend 1.16 kW of mechanical. 1.16 -0.8 = 0.36 kW of mechanical energy is unknown from where it appeared, is not it.

    http://n-t.ru/tp/ts/ci5a.gif

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Mechanics

    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    The term Energy is essentially a force in motion.



    For example, the formula for kinetic energy.
    T = mV^2 / 2 = Iw^2 / 2
    Here (m) is the mass of the body, (V) is the velocity of the center of mass, (w) is the angular velocity of the body and (I) is its moment of inertia about the instantaneous axis passing through the center of mass.
    Possible designations of kinetic energy: T, Ekin, K and others. In the SI system, it is measured in joules (J).

    When the rotational motion requires torque to create the angular acceleration of the object. The amount of torque needed to create angular acceleration depends on the mass distribution of the object. The moment of inertia is the value that describes the distribution. It can be found by integrating over the mass of all parts of the object and their distance to the center of rotation, but you can also search for the moments of inertia for common shapes. Torque on the axis is the product of the moment of inertia and angular acceleration. The unit of torque is Newton - meters (Nm).
    [Torque] = [Moment of inertia] x [Angular acceleration]
    T = Iw, where T is the torque around a specific axis (N ∙ m); I is the moment of inertia (kg ∙ m 2); w - angular acceleration (radian / s ^2)
    Another formula
    Torque [T] is the product of force [F] (in Newtons) on the shoulder of force [R] (in meters). In the SI system, it is measured in Newtons per meter (Nm).
    T = Fl, where (T) = torque around a certain axis (Nm); (F) = Pressure Force (N); (l) = Arm Length (Meters)

    From these components you can find the force that causes the rotation of the object.
    Termin energy is nothing more than a commercial concept for describing the action of a Force in motion on a path cut for a certain period of time.

    Let's apply this to the concept of the amount of DC electrical energy.
    Electrical energy (kW) is the product of voltage (Volt) and electric current in the circuit (Apery) over a period of time (hours). If we apply the same formula without a time derivative, we obtain the power parameter (P), where one of the derivatives is the POWER OF CURRENT.
    Energy is a derivative with an element of force, you can measure even the designation of lame parrots, but the essence of the concept of energy will not change.
    Much of what you say is true but some is not.

    Big thing: torque is not power.

    And torque is time derivative of angular momentum, however angular momentum is not necessarily time integral of torque. Case in point: torque can exist without rotation for period of time. Angular momentum is zero at standstill.

    You have a mistake where you say "Newtons per meter". Unit for torque is Newton meter (Nm). And do not forget that torque is a vector as is force, so it is necessary to include the angle of force related to radius thru point of rotation. Hence centrifugal force produces zero torque on axis of rotation.

    Also, you say "Electrical energy (kW)". Should be kWh.

    It appears you have confusion about energy and power. Power is defined as the rate at which work is done or the rate that energy is moved, transferred or converted. So power is the time derivative of energy.

    Regards,

    bi
    Last edited by bistander; 04-19-2019, 08:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    The term Energy is essentially a force in motion.

    Energy (ancient Greek -νέργεια - action, activity, strength, power) is a scalar physical quantity that is a single measure of various forms of movement and interaction of matter, a measure of the transition of movement of matter from one form to another. The introduction of the concept of energy is convenient in that if the physical system is closed, then its energy is conserved in this system for a period of time during which the system is closed. This statement is called the law of conservation of energy.
    From a fundamental point of view, energy is one of the three (energy, momentum, moment of momentum) of additive integrals of motion (that is, quantities that remain in motion), which, according to Noether’s theorem, is related to time homogeneity.
    In physics, mechanical energy describes the sum of the potential and kinetic energies present in the components of a mechanical system. Mechanical energy is the energy associated with the movement of an object or its position, the ability to perform mechanical work; it is the energy of motion and its accompanying interaction.
    For example, the formula for kinetic energy.
    T = mV^2 / 2 = Iw^2 / 2
    Here (m) is the mass of the body, (V) is the velocity of the center of mass, (w) is the angular velocity of the body and (I) is its moment of inertia about the instantaneous axis passing through the center of mass.
    Possible designations of kinetic energy: T, Ekin, K and others. In the SI system, it is measured in joules (J).

    When the rotational motion requires torque to create the angular acceleration of the object. The amount of torque needed to create angular acceleration depends on the mass distribution of the object. The moment of inertia is the value that describes the distribution. It can be found by integrating over the mass of all parts of the object and their distance to the center of rotation, but you can also search for the moments of inertia for common shapes. Torque on the axis is the product of the moment of inertia and angular acceleration. The unit of torque is Newton - meters (Nm).
    [Torque] = [Moment of inertia] x [Angular acceleration]
    T = Iw, where T is the torque around a specific axis (N ∙ m); I is the moment of inertia (kg ∙ m 2); w - angular acceleration (radian / s ^2)
    Another formula
    Torque [T] is the product of force [F] (in Newtons) on the shoulder of force [R] (in meters). In the SI system, it is measured in Newtons per meter (Nm).
    T = Fl, where (T) = torque around a certain axis (Nm); (F) = Pressure Force (N); (l) = Arm Length (Meters)

    From these components you can find the force that causes the rotation of the object.
    Termin energy is nothing more than a commercial concept for describing the action of a Force in motion on a path cut for a certain period of time.

    Let's apply this to the concept of the amount of DC electrical energy.
    Electrical energy (W) is the product of voltage (Volt) and electric current in the circuit (Apery) over a period of time (hours). If we apply the same formula without a time derivative, we obtain the power parameter (P), where one of the derivatives is the POWER OF CURRENT.
    Energy is a derivative with an element of force, you can measure even the designation of lame parrots, but the essence of the concept of energy will not change.
    Last edited by Rakarskiy; 04-19-2019, 07:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Forces

    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    The mistake of “bad math” is that he took potential energy as real. In general, the guy is a virtuoso, shows mathematical tricks. In one, he is right that torque is power, not energy. And for a flywheel or a rotor in the form of a flywheel an important component is the radius and the point of application of force. It is this device, American engineers, takes full advantage of what “bad mathematician” means. I calculated the flywheel torque by the parameters of centrifugal force, in one field of values ​​with the classical method, I got a non-linear torque curve, which is more true. You will not be denied that the flywheel has a moment of momentum? So under what conditions will it become positive?
    Hi Rakarskiy,

    Torque is not power. Torque is not energy. Power is not energy.

    Torque has nothing to do with centrifugal force, only tangential force.

    When it rotates, the flywheel or rotor has angular momentum or moment of momentum as you call it. If the angular velocity is constant, which is the case here, then momentum has nothing to do with output torque or power or efficiency.

    Angular momentum (or moment of momentum) is a vector quantity so has direction. Positive? That's for you to decide.

    Regards,

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    The mistake of “bad math” is that he took potential energy as real. In general, the guy is a virtuoso, shows mathematical tricks. In one, he is right that torque is power, not energy. And for a flywheel or a rotor in the form of a flywheel an important component is the radius and the point of application of force. It is this device, American engineers, takes full advantage of what “bad mathematician” means. I calculated the flywheel torque by the parameters of centrifugal force, in one field of values ​​with the classical method, I got a non-linear torque curve, which is more true. You will not be denied that the flywheel has a moment of momentum? So under what conditions will it become positive?

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    So the guy from the video is absolutely right, and he has an understanding.
    Great video showing how flywheel energy multiplication is being pursed.


    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bA2OMRcxKo&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    How can you say that guy in that video is right?

    And what do the two videos you linked have to do with the bad math guy?

    bi
    You can choose and pick equations tell it is all endless math with no bench
    time (You). Your problem? You assume that this man is a stupid fool
    because his flywheel numbers don't fit your ideas. I have watched Engineers
    disagree on the smallest of conventionally established devices cite
    separate math formulas. Each Engineer thinks he is right of course.

    This is nothing new. (Boring) What you need to know is that first the man
    in the video is not stupid. His way of explaining it may differ from the next
    guy is all.

    Whenever 2 or 3 people disagree on something that is working due to
    speculative conjecture, all of them should agree with the bench results.

    Figure out the math for it then.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    absolutely NOT right

    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    You absolutely correctly noticed that there is no load, no torque response. The mechanics of torque can be compared to electric amperes in a conductor. The calculation is made by a guy for potential energy.
    This is a massive flywheel, a product and a system of magnets on the rotor flywheel and gear shift levers. In fact, no matter what he pushes, an electromagnet or a lever with a magnet. The main thing is that the magnets melt in a circle, and not closer to the device shaft. So the guy from the video is absolutely right, and he has an understanding.

    https://youtu.be/UbWkIKgehLI

    https://youtu.be/1bA2OMRcxKo
    How can you say that guy in that video is right? He uses T = M * g * r for the torque developed by the rotor. Tell me how that is even remotely connected to that equation.

    It's possible there is confusion due to similarly of units of torque and energy. This should help.

    "The units for torque, as you stated, are Newton-meters. Although this is algebraically the same units as Joules, Joules are generally not appropriate units for torque.

    Why not? The simple answer is because

    W=F⃗ ⋅d⃗
    where W is the work done, F⃗ is the force, d⃗ is the displacement, and ⋅ indicates the dot product. However, torque on the other hand, is defined as the cross product of r⃗ and F⃗ where r⃗ is the radius and F⃗ is the force. Essentially, dot products return scalars and cross products return vectors.

    If you think torque is measured in Joules, you might get confused and think it is energy, but it is not energy. It is a rotational analogy of a force.

    Per the knowledge of my teachers and past professors, professionals working with this prefer the units for torque to remain N m (Newton meters) to note the distinction between torque and energy.

    Fun fact: alternative units for torque are Joules/radian, though not heavily used."
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/

    And what do the two videos you linked have to do with the bad math guy?

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    You absolutely correctly noticed that there is no load, no torque response. The mechanics of torque can be compared to electric amperes in a conductor. The calculation is made by a guy for potential energy.
    This is a massive flywheel, a product and a system of magnets on the rotor flywheel and gear shift levers. In fact, no matter what he pushes, an electromagnet or a lever with a magnet. The main thing is that the magnets melt in a circle, and not closer to the device shaft. So the guy from the video is absolutely right, and he has an understanding.

    https://youtu.be/UbWkIKgehLI

    https://youtu.be/1bA2OMRcxKo

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X